Finally, the answer revealed…
On the similarity of Koine and Modern Greek… and a silly photo
First, the serious photo that illustrates the similarity of Koine and Modern Greek. Here’s a sign, in modern Greek, on the base of a statue in Athens. If you have any knowledge of NT Greek, you’ll realise that it’s completely understandable. The very obvious continuity between Koine Greek and Modern Greek is one thing that’s pushing me toward the idea of adopting pronunciation that sounds more like real living Greek…
And now the silly photo – taken in a toyshop in Athens…
Children and instruments: They play, you grown.
Call me Matt whom?
Question: What do the following have in common?
- Wet cloth mammal
- Watch Momma tell
- Mammoth act well
- Tell Macaw to hmm
- Watch Ma tell Mom
- Call me Matt whom?
Answer: They are all anagrams of Matthew Malcolm!!!
This site came up with 2002 of ‘em! Check it out and let me know in the comments if it comes up with any good ones for your own name… or that of the theologian of your choice…
DVD Review: Read and Share Bible
I was given a DVD to review by the good folks at Thomas Nelson:
It’s part of a series of DVDs that aims to engage pre-schoolers with stories from the Bible. Overall I’m impressed with this volume, which covers Genesis, up until the point that Jacob wrestles with God; and then episodes from the Gospels.
The animation, as you can gather from the cover, is simple and representative, while quite warm and engaging. I like the funny noses… somehow the obvious cartoonish-ness of the animation draws attention to the fact that this is not supposed to be taken as a painstaking re-creation of the historical events, but rather a pathway into the drama of the Bible’s stories. In this vein, there are ways in which the stories are especially directed toward the young viewers, with the creation account mentioning puppies, the Noah’s ark sequence involving a monkey riding on a deer’s back, and other gently humourous or expanded elements. Having said that, I think the DVD as a whole does well in being faithful to the stories it tells. There are no moralising interpretations added onto the stories – they are simply allowed to speak for themselves, which is a good thing from my perspective.
The background instrumental music is non-intrusive and quite fitting. Different vignettes are narrated by one of two different narrators. The male narrator has what I would guess is a Boston accent – very clear and understandable for those of us who live in the UK! The female narrator’s voice is also quite clear and accessible to children.
I have not watched every bit of the bonus features, but this is because our 4yo daughter and 2yo son didn’t like those parts. They involved material that was largely aimed at parents, showing how the animation was done. Older children might find this interesting, but it didn’t seem entirely necessary.
One of the drawbacks of simplifying the Bible for children is that inevitably certain things are skipped over, and certain things are crystallised in a way that may need to be unlearned later on in life. For example, the story of the prodigal son finishes with the return of the prodigal (missing out the climactic interchange with the older brother); and the angels are shown as winged creatures (rather than appearing human) with Gregorian-style singing voices. I’m not quite sure what to make of this issue: Will my children now picture winged creatures when they hear about angels in the Bible – not realising that the New Testament itself never indicates that this is how they are to be understood? Will they, in future years, assume that the only point of the “Prodigal Son” parable is that the father welcomed the prodigal? I think these sorts of things are always going to be issues when we attempt to put something literary into a visual form: There is a loss that occurs when the Bible is made into a DVD… but that doesn’t mean that it’s a worthless enterprise; it simply means that we need to be aware of these drawbacks.
My two children really enjoy watching this DVD, sometimes watching the whole thing (I guess about 40 minutes) twice in one sitting! So I’m happy to recommend it to people with pre-school age children, and we’ll be looking out for subsequent volumes in the series.
Easter Sunday: Resurrection in Corinth
Paul, believe it or not, would agree completely with Plato, when Plato says in Phaedrus 246c:
All together it is called a living being: soul and body together. It is designated as mortal; it is not for any reason to be considered immortal.
That is, for Paul as for Plato, human beings (including Christians) are emphatically mortal, not immortal. But whereas Plato thinks that this is the case because the immortal soul has become weighed down by the mortal body, Paul thinks that humans are not immortal because they are not God, and belong to Adam’s fallen race. This is an important lesson for the Corinthians to learn – given that they seem to assume they have already entered into immortality:
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood [elsewhere, Paul's term for "humans"] cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
For Paul, Christians are presently mortal… but when Christ appears and raises the dead, they will share the immortality that is rightly his:
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Christians of the early centuries responded to this hope by facing their churches toward the East, where the Lord was expected to return… and they buried their dead in the same way. Here is a Christian woman, buried in Nemea (near Corinth) in the 6th century. Her head is raised on a pillow and she is facing the East, awaiting resurrection and immortality when her Lord returns:
58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
This brings our little series on the world of 1 Corinthians to a close.
Good Friday: Death in Corinth
1 Corinthians 15…
What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
“Death” is the one topic in 1 Corinthians 15 that is more prevalent than “resurrection”… It seems that the Christians in Corinth were “mortiphobic”, acting as though they had already entered into immortality and had no need to bear crosses in the present. But Paul insists that the one prerequisite for resurrection is death, which casts its shadow over the Christian life in the shape of the cross.
And death in Corinth, as elsewhere, was not an attractive prospect.
Pausanius, 2.2.4: And as one goes up to Corinth, there are tombs along the road.
Heroes reclining at a funeral in Corinth:
“…My blessed wife died the eleventh day before the Kalends of September”:
These touching grave stones from Athens show the utter grief associated with death – Notice the downcast faces, the longing for connection with the living, and the loss of the treasures of this life:
Sirach 41:1-3; Septuagint
O death [ō thanate], how bitter is the thought of you to a person [anthrōpō] living at peace among their possessions, to one who is free of distractions and blessed [euodoumenō] in all things, and still strong [ischuonti] enough to partake in food!
O death, how good your judgement [krima] is to the person who is needy [epideomenō] and who lacks strength; to the one who is in old age, and is beset by all sorts of distractions, and who despairs, and who has lost endurance [hupomonēn].
Do not fear the judgement of death: Remember those who have come before you, and those who will come later: This is the judgement of the Lord on all flesh [pasē sarki].
Tomorrow – Easter Saturday: Silence…
On the night he was betrayed
And so, on the eve of Good Friday (on which day this blog turns one year old), we come to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and the Corinthian failure to understand it:
20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
How, in Paul’s view, were the Corinthians failing to participate in the Lord’s Supper? In a way parallel to every other issue in chs.8-14 of 1 Corinthians: They were exercising Christian knowledge/freedom/rights/experiences in a spirit of autonomous rivalry rather than in a spirit of love… they were failing to see that participation in Christ means participation in Christ’s body, the church.
The image of the “body” for a mutually contributing group was not new with Paul – it was used by others, especially as an image of a properly functioning city. Plato, you’ll recall, parallels a properly functioning person with a properly functioning city, in which each member plays its appropriate role. Maximus of Tyre, just after the time of Paul, writes:
Oration 15.4-5: But a city is something brought together by the joint work [sunergatōn] of all. The use of the body [sōmatos] is similar, which itself has many parts [polumerēs] and many requirements [poludeēs], and is preserved [sōzetai] by the joint aim of the parts [merōn] toward the corporation of the whole: Feet carry, hands work, eyes see, ears hear, and so on, lest I speak pedantically. But if the Phrygian story-maker wanted to compose a myth in which the foot, being fed up with the rest of the body [sōmati], gave up, due to weariness, carrying and lifting such a heavy load, and pursued leisure and rest; or if the molars, because of grinding and producing food for such a crowd, grew angry, and, being asked, refused to give attention to their proper work – if these things happened at once, what other than the destruction of the person would ensue in the myth? This sort of thing is indeed what happens with regard to the political fellowship [tēn koinōnian tēn politikēn]!
But for Paul, the idea of the “body” is not simply a useful analogy; it’s central to his understanding of what a Christian is – a believer belongs to Christ, and so shares in his body – thus one can’t share in the bread which is his body, while concurrently…
…Cursing other members of the body in the name of Jesus, following the pattern of contemporary curse tablets – many of which have been found in Ancient Corinth:
3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus curse,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
…or placing one’s “spirituality” on display, imitating the individualistic, provocative, and status-based expressions of prayer/ritual/mystical expression common to the surrounding areas:
2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But those who prophesy speak to people for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 Those who speak in a tongue edify themselves, but those who prophesy edify the church.
Tomorrow – Good Friday: Death in Corinth
Headcoverings and Worship
14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?
A lot of writers of this period talk about that which is “in accordance with nature” or “against nature”. One of the ways this is used in relation to sex is to affirm a “natural” distinction between men and women, with implications for human sexuality:
Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 190-4: Do not transgress natural sex [eunas phuseōs] for irregular passion [Kupron athesmon]: The beasts themselves are not pleased with homosexual intercourse [arsenes eunai]. Do not let women imitate the sexual role [lechos] of men. Do not let yourself become an uncontrollable torrent [reusēs akathekton] toward your wife. For Eros is not a god, but a passion [pathos], destructive of all.
Josephus, Against Apion, II, 199: And what of the laws concerning marriage? The law sees sex only as that according to nature [kata phusin] with a woman; and this for the production of children. But that of a man with a man it abhors, and punishes with death those who partake in it.
Josephus, Against Apion, II, 273: The people of Elis and Thebes [were led to condemn] that which was against nature [tēs para phusin] and unrestrained homosexual intercourse [arrenas mixeōs].
Josephus, Against Apion, II, 275: The Greeks attributed to the gods homosexual intercourse [arenōn mixeis], and, for the same reason, marriage of brother and sister, that these might be a defence of their indulgence in unspeakable and unnatural pleasures [para phusin hēdonōn].
Gaius Musonius Rufus, Discourse 12: But of all sorts of intercourse it is the adulterous that are most unlawful [paranomōtatai], and of these, none is more immoderate than that of men with men [arrenas tois arresin], because such a reckless thing is against nature [para phusin].
It seems that Paul is keen to preserve cultural expressions of the “natural” distinction between men and women, “on account of the angels”…. What the?? Bruce Winter suggests that perhaps “angelos” here refers to “messengers” – i.e. spies sent by the newly vigorous Roman Imperial cult, to check on potentially illegal political meetings. Thus, Paul would be saying that, in order not to raise the suspicions of the Roman watchers, the standard practice of wives having their heads covered should be preserved. It does appear that “angelos” is sometimes used in a similar way in this period – as a human messenger:
Epictetus, 3.22.23: It is necessary for the true Cynic to know that he is a messenger [angelos] from God, sent to the people to show them about the things that are good and the things that are bad.
Epictetus, 3.22.69: [The Cynic ought to be] the messenger [angelon] and spy [kataskopon] and herald [kēruka] of the gods.
It is clear from the archaeological evidence that from Greek to Roman times, women (including wives of emperors) were presented as having hair that was tied up or covered. Headcoverings are especially evident in grave stones, where the women were obviously intended to be presented as pious wives:
But of course in 1 Corinthians, the issue is not just that women should maintain cultural expressions of marital fidelity, but that this should specifically occur within the context of worship. Why would it be especially tempting for women to remove the signs of marital fidelity in the context of prayer and prophecy? Perhaps one direction to explore is the possibility that expressions of female-led spirituality – such as that occurring in Eleusis – were admired by liberated Roman wives in Corinth: In Eleusis, all of the worship was led by women, who represented the goddesses Demeter and Persephone. In this role, freedom and fertility appear to have been celebrated:
In this same context, there are statues of (male) emperors, depicted with their heads covered – as was the custom of Roman worship. The first two pictures are from Eleusis, the third is from Corinth:
If these sorts of male and female expressions of Greco-Roman worship were being imitated in the Christian church at Corinth, it was presumably communicating both an unhelpful adoption of (status-based) pagan religiosity, and an unhelpful provocation of cultural acceptability.
Tomorrow: The Lord’s Supper in Corinth; Friday: Death in Corinth; Sunday: The resurrection of the dead
Meat Sacrificed to Idols
The agora of Ancient Corinth had idols and temples all around, from the large Temple of Apollo and the (Roman Imperial cult) Temple of Octavia, down to little shrines and monuments. None of the shops were far from temples, and the meat-market, which was along the Lechaion Road, would only have stocked meat that had been sacrificed to idols – thus Paul’s recommendation that they eat it without asking questions!
Pausanius 2.2.6: The things worthy of speaking about in the city are still left from ancient times, though many of them come from the latter [i.e. Roman] period of the city’s prime. On the agora – where many of the temples are found – are Artemis, surnamed Ephesian, and a wooden Dionysus, covered in gold except for their faces.
The temple of Apollos (one of my favourite pics from our time in Corinth):
The agora:
The shops below the Temple of Apollo:
Close up of same shops:
West shops:
Front of Temple of Octavia:
Temple of Octavia from behind:
Tomorrow: Headcoverings and Worship
Your Body Belongs to the Lord (may contain ancient erotica and nudity)
In order to understand perceptions of the body and pleasure in Paul and in Roman Corinth, it may be helpful to begin with Plato:
Republic, IV, 439d: We shall think that these things are twofold and different to one another: The one which reasons in the soul we call rationality; and the other which loves and hungers and thirsts, and concerning the other desires [epithumias] feels disturbance , we call the irrational [alogiston] and appetitive [epithumētikon], companion of various fulfilments and pleasures [hēdonōn].
Plato’s distinction between reason and appetites/passions proved to be very influential. But it was not that the body itself (or the part of the soul devoted to its interests) was evil; rather it needed to be in harmony and submission to that part of the soul which was entrusted with reason. So Demosthenes was able to write to a male friend, praising his bodily beauty, because it was in harmony with (perhaps the expression of) a beautiful soul. This praise of a fellow male’s beauty was, according to Demosthenes, emphatically not to be considered as homosexual passion, but rather as “pure and self-disciplined” love:
61.6 “Erotic Essay”: Therefore I have been all the more moved to write this message [logon], not wanting to miss out on directing toward two goods. For, beginning to describe to you your good qualities, I hope at the same time to demonstrate both that you are desirable [zēlōton], and that, being thus, I am not senseless if I love [agapō] you. And in offering this most pressing advice, I will show my own goodwill and provide a basis for our common friendship.
61.8: All will agree with me that for those of such an age as yours it is most pressing to have beauty of appearance, and prudence [sōphrosunēn] of soul, and manliness [andreian] with regard to both of these, and consistently to have gracefulness of speech.
So the beauty of the human body was celebrated in the Greco-Roman world, without necessarily implying “sensual passion”. It is in this light that Greek “pederasty” should be understood: This was a relationship in which a boy on his way to respectable adulthood was to be given an education by an older man, whose reward would be to enjoy the youth’s beauty, as seen especially in his athletic pursuits. As the object was to develop the boy into a respectable man, there would be no sexual penetration (as this was considered feminising and degrading to the recipient), but at times there was sexual involvement of other kinds. This was not automatically considered to be obscene, and certainly wasn’t considered as a mutual sexual relationship… but of course, Jewish onlookers found this detestable (so Philo, On the Decalogue, XXXII).
This is also the light in which to consider presentations of Aphrodite: She is presented as, at one and the same time, one who incites erotic desire, and one whose beauty represents a purer sort of love. She continues to be presented in this way into the Roman period. Notice her shyness, and her rejection of Pan’s sexual advances (she’s ready to whack him with a well-aimed sandal). The final picture is from Corinth:
Interestingly, Hellenistic Jewish presentations of ethics often seem to attempt to present the ideals of the Torah in a way that appeals to the values of Greek philosophy – viewing “passions”/”appetites” as being the basest expression of idolatry. Thus, “sexual immorality” is generally presented as the most fundamental vice:
IV Maccabees 1:1: Godly reason [eusebēs logismos] is master of the passions [pathōn].
Sibylline Oracles, Book III, 762-6: But enliven your thinking in your breasts, Flee unlawful worship [latreias], worship the living one. Guard against adultery [moicheias] and homosexual intercourse [arsenos akriton eunēn]. Nourish and do not murder [phoneue] the children you have borne. For the immortal one will become angry at the one who sins in these things.
Psalms of Solomon 2:11-13: They [i.e. the Gentiles] held up the sons of Jerusalem to ridicule, on account of the prostitutes [or fornications: pornōn] among her. Every passer-by entered in the view of the sun [i.e. daylight]. They mocked their lawless ways compared to their own doings. In the view of the sun they displayed their evil deeds [adikias]. And the daughters of Jerusalem are polluted according to your judgement. For they defiled [emiaiōsan] themselves in promiscuous disorder.
Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 3-8: Do not commit adultery [gamoklopeein], nor stir homosexual passion [arsena Kupron]. Do not sew together deceit, nor defile [miainein] your hands with blood. Do not become wealthy [ploutein] unjustly, but live from honourable means. Be content with your possessions and abstain from those of another. Do not tell lies, but always speak truth. First honour God; and thereafter your parents.
Philo, On the Decalogue XXIV, 121-123: In writing the other set [i.e. the second table of the Decalogue], concerning prohibitions related to humans, he begins with adultery [moicheias], taking this to be the greatest of crimes. For firstly it springs from the love of pleasure [philedonian], which both enfeebles the bodies of those it holds, and loosens the tendons of the soul and destroys the very existence, consuming all that it touches as an unquenchable fire, leaving nothing safe in human life.
This logic can also be seen in the epistles of Paul, including 1 Corinthians, in which the ethical section of chs.5-14 begins with the problems of “porneia”, “moicheia” and the “body”: Perhaps what we see in Paul is a “Christologisation” of the ethics of Hellenistic Judaism.
Tomorrow: Meat Sacrificed to Idols
RSS - Posts